• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Do atheists lean more to the left of politics

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by stevevw, Feb 26, 2021.

  1. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +3,140
    Methodist
    [​IMG]

    Unless "The Believers Share Their Possessions" was placed in the Bible just to fill up space, it was intended to instruct future generations to practice a form of "Christian socialism" that the religious conservatives have found difficult to accept!

    One of the major reasons that motivated conservative Christians to place their political support behind President Trump and the Republicans was their ability to influence the appointment of those judges whose interpretation of the Constitution and the law would promote their agenda!

    Conservative Christians freely admit that their "end-game," when it comes to placing "like-minded" judges in positions of authority, wasn't one of "voluntary" compliance, but "coercion" - based on the enforcement of favorable legal decisions through the Courts!

    As previously stated, conservative Christians appear only too willing to tie themselves in knots when it comes to minimizing the importance and application of "The Believers Share Their Possessions" - they have no intention of allowing the American public the option of "voluntary" compliance with respect to abortion, should SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade!

    When it comes to promoting their ideologically-driven interpretation of the Bible, conservative Christians have never been adverse to resorting to "political hardball" - the "voluntary versus coercion" argument is reserved for those Biblical selections, like "The Believers Share Their Possessions," that they would prefer to ignore!
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2021
  2. Albion

    Albion Factchecker

    +31,955
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    I don't think there's any basis for that conclusion. What they object to is not charity but the claim that socialism is Biblical or that the government ought to take over charitable giving.

    Besides, various studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity, to the needy and less fortunate, than people of other political leanings tend to do. They just don't advertise it as much.
     
  3. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Was she not an atheist that wasn't a leftist? In terms of what was being asked, it was a pretty straightforward example of an atheist that wasn't a leftist.
     
  4. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    I'm not clear on what this has to do with my questions or who you're even trying to address.
     
  5. Albion

    Albion Factchecker

    +31,955
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    It's a valid example, yes.

    However, there are many political conservatives who are atheists. It's not necessary instead to turn to an Objectivist in order to prove your point.
     
  6. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Sure, there are plenty of examples.
     
  7. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,821
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    Not to mention that Biden, even though he called "packing the court" a "bonehead move" and talked against it on other occasions... is now taking action to pack the court.
     
  8. christianzealot4

    christianzealot4 New Member

    1
    +0
    Austria
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    What? None of those countries are socialist in theory or even in practice.
     
  9. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Circling back to this, though I'm not sure who you're referring to when you refer to "conservative Christians" (since you're supposed to be talking to me and not some amorphous collective who has not elected me as spokesman, though I understand this may be difficult for you), do you disagree that the earliest Christians in Acts were doing so voluntarily? Do you think they were forced by the Roman government into their arrangement?

    Of course not, and that's quite absurd. Christianity at that time was a quite marginal, fringe group within wider Judaism. The arrangement was voluntary. The Roman Empire did not force anyone into a Christian-style Kibbutz (nor did their Sadduccean client rulers). Surely you agree with some basic history?

    So the first point is that the earliest Christian description in Acts was voluntary. This is quite indisputable and I don't realistically expect you to be able to respond to this obviousness, and this point stands independently and conclusively to other considerations I'm going to mention. The next few points will be more disputable (though you likely will not have the tools to do so):

    (2) No sooner had the earliest Christians formed a, supposed, Christian-style Kibbutz than it failed to function. There was a dispute about the distribution of food and unfair treatment in this supposed idealistic setting (Acts 4). The Hellenistic Jewish women weren't being treated a equally as the Hebraic Jewish women. So far as I can tell, it's difficult to argue this setting is some ideal arrangement of society when it fails so soon. I mean, if the ideal society fails within a decade or so, is it really "ideal"? Also so far as I can tell, this unequal treatment would be a feature of the structure of a Kibbutz-like arrangement that was growing too large.

    (3) The point of all of this in Acts is not to give a prescription of how society should be arranged (and Luke does not give prescriptive commands), but to describe how God arranged the gospel to proceed from Jerusalem to Judea to Samaria to the ends of the world. The emphasis here is the spreading of the gospel, not an ideal arrangement of Christian society, and much less some political description that is necessarily applicable to anyone else. This larger context will, undoubtedly, be ignored by you.

    (4) Its hard to argue that because the earliest Christians were doing something, therefore it's applicable to everyone, everywhere, always. There could, at least theoretically, be conditions in the early church that would be applicable only to the early church and which are not necessarily intended to be modeled everywhere and always. So, it's fallacious to argue that (a) the early church did X and (b) therefore, we should too. The earliest church also participated in the Temple and met in synagogues...should we?

    At any rate, the appeal to Acts by modern, American, Protestant, Christian socialists and/or progressives is pretty misguided and anachronistic.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2021
  10. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +3,140
    Methodist
    [​IMG]

    Given that the "FALSE PROPHET" is a prominent, reoccurring theme throughout both the Old and New Testaments, "inquiring minds" would be justified in questioning as to why throughout most of its history, the Church has allowed so much of its time and energy to be siphoned off to champion those causes, for which the Bible has little or nothing to say!

    The sad reality is that so much of what passes for Christianity in the 21st C has become so distorted that it has far more in common with the Biblical scribes and Pharisees - religious groups for which Christ reserved his severest condemnations!

    Having effectively ignored the Greatest Commandment and Beatitudes by following a succession of "false prophets," the Christian Church, in the eyes of the world, has left a "moral vacuum" that other "enlightened" members of secular society have attempted to fill!
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2021
  11. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,853
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The common thread shares by all the world's religions is the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    The secular humanists of western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. base much of their government policy based on this universal ethical principle.

    The religious right in the U.S. seems obsessed with "thou shalt nots," particularly when they apply to others, combined with a prosperity gospel materialism that doesn't recognize our responsibility to our neighbors.

    And so, when I prayerfully ponder WWJD I find it more in the secular humanists than in the conservative template of Christianity.

    In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the secular humanist gets the starring role.
     
  12. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +3,140
    Methodist
    [​IMG]

    Given that starting in the early 1970's, America's "economy-wide productivity" increased by approximately 150%, the "hourly compensation for typical workers" has remained relatively stagnant!

    Conservative Christians, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to aligned themselves with an economic model that for the last 50 years has failed to compensate American workers - no matter how much more productive they have become!

    Someone has benefitted from this 150% increase in productivity - unfortunately "the power that be" made the conscious decision than the rewards shouldn't be shared with those very workers who made it possible!
     
  13. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Does hourly compensation in this graph include benefits (eg, medical, educational, time off, 401k matches, etc..)?
     
  14. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,853
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Have you been working in the U.S. labor force in the last 40 years?
    Union membership has plummeted.
    Health insurance costs have skyrocketed, and have been transferred to employees.
    Monthly pensions are a thing of the past--and 401K matches are, at least in the company my husband retired from, dependent on revenue.
    Companies have become leaner and meaner in every way, and small businesses are the worst--they often have no benefits at all.
     
  15. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Are you commenting on my question about the chart that was posted?
     
  16. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,853
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You implied that the hourly wage of employees seemed stagnant but that benefits might have improved.

    America wishes!! They, too have gotten worse and probably would make the difference between productivity and wages even greater.
     
  17. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    I simply asked a clarification about the data included in the graph posted. Since you feel the need to address it, I can pose the question to you as well I suppose. Does the graph include other forms of compensation? There are possible indices from the BLS to measure this (eg, the Employment Cost Index), but apparently neither the author of that graph nor the poster on this board (nor you) considered these.

    I'm also not sure that BLS data goes back as far as the graph leads one to believe, which I believe is why in the footnote on the graph it mentions it's based on "analysis of data" from the BLS and BEA rather than just providing the data. So I'm not quite sure what exactly the author of the graph has analyzed or how they analyzed it if the actual data doesn't go back that far. This looks like it could be a crucial point too.

    My initial question is pertinent because businesses pay all employment costs, not just hourly wages. It's quite possible that once all forms of compensation are considered, they still warrant the same conclusion, but one needs the appropriate data first.

    I mean, you can assert this all you want. I'm simply asking for the data. It's really a rather reasonable thing to ask. I'm sorry I don't just take your assertions or anecdotes as legitimate macroeconomic data.
     
  18. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,853
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You are free to research it if you want.

    Robert Reich has written extensively about labor. He has books, videos, you tubes filled with charts, but I am relying primarily on lived experiences.
     
  19. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,270
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a sign of a bad argument.

    Good for him. Maybe he can answer the question I posed on this thread?

    Ok, that's just not macroeconomic data though. It's anecdotal data and so not very useful when addressing questions that are macroeconomic or statistical in nature.
     
  20. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote Supporter

    +9,853
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I am satisfied with my information. You aren't.

    I have learned in talking with people with different views that I could submit multiple references to no avail.

    Let's take election fraud believers, for example. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, nothing.

    I rarely ask people to prove their claims. If I don't believe them, I ignore it.

    I need a source i consider reputable. I like sources like NY Times and WAPO.

    My opinion is based on years of being a voracious news junkie. And the purpose of this forum is discussion, not academic thesis.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
Loading...